Sublimation of the Risk
When the NY Fed investigated Goldman Sachs’ investment banking practices and decided to let it slide, the harm the bank did was deemed acceptable. The methods used to gain the benefit of this acceptable amount of harm is well documented.
Controlling for the common cause was once a function of the social contract. Commoners and nobles alike identified with the king–the sovereign power–but the business class (the middle class) emerged with the natural right to self-determine. That changed everything. The common cause was no longer a command function but a commonly divisible demand function.
Now, being powerful is a function of wielding power on demand, significantly different from coercing subjects into doing your will just because you say so.
An on-demand legitimacy constructs a new existential argument.
When Goldman Sachs causes detriment to gain capital, it is doing it for the common good, and regulators reluct prosecution of their methods because, they argue, it yields a public good–the capital. Of course, this admits that the capital is a common good, but since the ignorant masses are not privy to its management, it is privately owned (subliminal) and self-regulated (by the Fed, for example), which naturally yields (on demand) to the public good, utilizing the natural laws of market mechanics. Although the benefit should be commonly divisible (being a common good) capitalists say that its common distribution (losing its ruling-class identity) is bad because it spends the capital–it eats the seeds of future growth.
Claiming that free-market mechanics is the model of inefficiency and must therefore be “made” more efficient, the “natural existence” argument has been reconstructed. We now have the “Objectivist” construction of the argument, and like Ted Cruz says, to legitimately exercise power it is necessary “to win the argument.”
Since “making markets” no longer yields winners and losers by means of popular mechanics, unpopular measures naturally proceed from the top down. Naturally, bad medicine (austerity, for example) must be administered from the top down. Risk is jammed down our throats to yield the public good (the “general welfare”) just as Alexander Hamilton said it should, managing the risk by financial means. The risk we depend on to hold the aspirations of elite authority fully accountable without government authority is being overtly perverted by covert means.
Risk, it is no secret, operates in dark markets.
Dark pooled, bundled, and securitized into a hidden, aggregated detriment, “the big risk” we all commonly share is sublimated. Risk is constructed and reconstructed into an arbitrage argument (created and destroyed) to convert the capital (your commonly divisible property) into the private property of people claiming god-like attributions that are unaccountable but exist on demand.
By covert means, ownership (the object of self-determination) is being perverted.
What should be the object of common divisibility is converted to the tragedy of the collective commons, existing in a zero-marginal-cost society (a two-class society of rich and poor, rulers and ruled, servants and served, slaves and masters). The free-market legitimacy we naturally rely on to immediately apply “the risk” is being progressively destroyed to recreate the indefinite terms (the conditions) for the social contract, which naturally yields to an on command existence that resists the value of being nothing (nihilism). The resistance is, naturally, coercive (reactionary). The conditions are: if you do not conform to our demands, then you force us to be coercive–which is what it means to formulate a risk-tautology (validation rather than verification of the risk) on demand.
(Remember that in a free market, demand verifies satisfaction without coercive means. The vendor is not coerced into compliance but encouraged to verify customer loyalty. Satisfaction is guaranteed. The market–the risk–is shared in a non-catastrophic, pluralistic proportion. It is immediate and completely divisible. It is non-nihilistic. If you are displeased, and what displeases you may be what pleases someone else, going to the competition guarantees complete satisfaction. It is a completely positive, creative condition. It is an addjective reality–an empirical, comparative addjection that is not a nihilistic expansion of the risk accumulated with errors of attribution. You condition the marketplace to verifiably satisfy your terms, demanding the construction, not the other way around, which would require coercive means, demanding the destruction.)
Partisans on both the left and the right are demanding conservation of the natural risk.
“We” demand self-determination!
Meaningful, direct, and commonly divisible. It is only natural to demand non-violent accountability from the bottom up (the “conditions” a free market provides in priority). It is only natural to overtly measure the value of existence over time and resist the occupation of space with arguments so ridiculous they are, objectively, sublime!